I heard something jarring on Fox News Sunday this week, that had me shaking my head. Mara Liasson (D-NPR), I think was trying to convey the administration's position on Obamacare, not necessarily her own:

"...some people will pay more (but) more people will end up paying less for coverage."

Did you get that? "more people will end up paying less for coverage". Exactly how does that work out for us green eye shade types? For starters, the government, who doesn't trust you to make an intelligent or self enlightened position on buying light bulbs or toilets, doesn't think you can pick out your own insurance, so they've come up with a one-size-fits-all approach to coverage.
Single man? Elderly?? The government adds maternity, prenatal care and birth control to your new policy. Let's see a show of hands of all you who think that adding additional coverage will lower your insurance bill? Anyone?? Anyone at all??? We'll put these people in the column of "people paying more".
Well, how about those "millions of uninsured" O'care promised to cover? If they start paying anything at all, they're paying 'more', right? But, in order to subsidize these folk, who presumably couldn't afford it before now, someone is going to have to subsidize the difference, no? You can't add subsidies to millions of people currently without insurance without someone paying 'more'. Another addition to the column of "people paying more".
And what about that large group of uninsured who were so by choice? Those young, healthy individuals who made a rational decision, or even a gamble, if you will, that they would not need catastrophic insurance or perhaps any insurance at all? They are now forced to buy insurance they didn't want, or pay a fine. Thus we add them to the column of "people paying more".
In addition, how about the magnanimity of covering preexisting conditions? Any added costs there? You do realize the concept of an insurance pool, right? Enough healthy people or good drivers pay in enough, so that when any of them get sick or have an accident, that there is money to pay them, with enough left over to keep the doors open at the insurance company (so they can at least make the next payout). Insurance companies hire people called actuarials, to figure out out, of any average given number of people, how many develop cancer, broken bones or strep throats, fender benders and DUIs, as opposed to a larger number (more) who won''t, so that they can calculate the costs and set rates accordingly. Every person you add with a 'preexisting condition', throws that average off, and immediately raises the costs, which then have to be passed on to...everyone. If a cancer patient joins an insurance 'pool', paying a $200 a month premium and has a $2 million dollar a year medical bill, who picks up the difference? Oh, yeah...some people who are paying more. So, if you currently have a policy, covering other people's preexisting conditions, without qualification, will cost you "more".
Let's recap: if you're a single guy, an elderly man or woman, young adult, or anyone currently buying insurance, the odds are you're going to be paying more. The only people who would be paying less, are those few, who are currently insured, but still poor enough to qualify for subsidies, for which, as you know, all of the other suckers are paying...you guessed it...more. Funny how we don't hear a lot of success stories of people getting better coverage for less. I thought there'd be more of them?
Now when someone, (well, someone other than Barack "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" Obama), says that "...some people will pay more (but) more people will end up paying less for coverage", an honest person, taking this at face value, would probably assume that the speaker meant that the "more people who would pay less" was in comparison to "those who would pay more". But, could this be one of those "the meaning of 'is' is" moments that sneaky liberal and lying Democrats but I repeat myself) are known for? Could the "more people paying less" be totally unrelated to the number of more paying more? Given the track record of this administration, you tell me.
The Obama administration is counting (pun intended) on the innumeracy of the American public, ill served by decades of government education, added to (ditto) the innumeracy of the MSM, who are loathe to call Obama to account for even his most flagrant shortcomings, in order to sell this to the American public. Obama's Chief Financial Adviser, Malibu Barbie, once stated that "Math is hard". President Obama feeling as if that undercut the administration's position on all things numerical and blow his cover, admonished Barbie not to speak publicly of this again.
Ms. Barbie could not be reached for comment.
Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art
Cross posted at Proof Positive

Dear sweet Ema! Your ability to add one and one and still get zero is unequaled! Is the reality of an overly complex, 20,000+ page bill dealing with an overly costly, one-size-fits-all health plan too much for you to grasp? Or the fact that however many people who were a part of Obama's plurality, may have been bamboozled by his lies, that the fact is that even on the day after the 2012 elections, a majority of the American people were polled as not wanting the bill?

You're innumeracy, projection and estrangement from reality are all duly noted.

BTW, as far as your Barbie imitation, Ema...You've got the "plastic" part down pat!

ObamaCare/ObamaTax is designed to force people off their employer sponsored plans and onto an eventual socialized single payer plan. This single plan is the equivalent of the famous Model T Ford. It came in any color, as long as it was black. - See more at: http://blog.doodooecon.com/2012/07/obamacare-health-insurance-in-any-color.html#sthash.35BJ65ld.dpuf

So you are now oh so concerned for the well-being of multinational insurance companies? Really?! Do you have any concerns for the health care coverage for people of USA?

(You do realize, don't cha, that in Germany, where the people have cradle to grave government controlled high quality health care coverage, the largest corporations are insurance companies, raking in money hands over fists?)

______________________________~

This is an ABSOLUTE guarantee. NO insurance company will ever be hurt, in absolutely no way, by ACA law. ACA was written by the insurance companies for the insurance companies benefits!!

______________________________~

You cannot have it both ways. Is it one-size-fits-all or is the law too complicated for you?

What do you care more about - a $70 million glitchy web site or a $24 billion government shutdown?

Poor addled Ema! You have your facts wrong about the popularity of the CACA, and your ignorance remains impenetrable when people try to alleviate it. Obamacare has never been favored by the American people. You could look it up if you were even vaguely competent.

Saying I "can't have it both ways", ignores the facts again. Saying that a bill to provide one-size-fits-all healthcare can't be complex is no different than saying one could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a website that doesn't work. The incompetence of your colleagues is the stuff of legends.

Have you ever considered limiting your comments to things you actually know something about, or did you lose that vote to the little voices in your head as well?

Enjoying the hyperbole from both sides. Fact, ACA, at least so far has been anything but positive. Fact, close to 5 million people have received cancellation notices. Fact, fewer than 50,000 have signed up so far. Fact, the marriage penalty is wrong. Fact, premiuns and deductibles are anything but affordable, Fact, ACA will collapse under it's own weight if not fixed and fixed fast. Fact, it remains the law, so rational people would either fix it or scrap it.

If I were the President I would call Switzerland and send a bipartisan group of lawmakers over to find out how a market based universal health care system that is actually functional works successfully.

The biggest problem? Finding anyone who is actually bipartisan and truly concerned with what is best for the country.

"ACA, at least so far has been anything but positive." Fact, if you are in competition for King of the Understatement, you're off to a good start!

" rational people would either fix it or scrap it" Since its "flaws" are principally by design, rational people are attempting to scrap it, while this administration spends hundreds of millions on a website that doesn't work and millions of people lose perfectly good insurance coverage. Since "bipartisanship" to liberals means "agree with us", which part of the Hindenburgic disaster that is Obamacare would you like us to 'agree with' the liberals on?

I find your naivete quite touching regarding "bipartisanship" in fixing a problem foisted upon us by a single party, a party which accepted no input from any other in the drafting or passage of the bill, which party was willing to shut down the government rather than have one whit of the bill altered or delayed.

In my mind's eye, I see you in New Jersey in 1937, crying that, if there had only been a bi-partisan fire department, the Hindenburg* might have been saved!

*Seeing your comments often reminds me of a large, flaming gas bag. Must be the history buff in me!

Ah, dear little Irrational Notion! Your typical knee jerk, Mind Read Fail reaction to my posts is all, I guess, we can expect from you. I criticize Obama and Ema says it's because he's black. I criticize Obama and you say it's because I'm partisan. You two soulmates sure have a lot in common!Perhaps one day, you'll be able to view the world from a less narrow point of view* and accept that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar**, and criticism of Obama is because he has done something worthy of criticism.

*i.e. the view from your colon**FYI: Reference to Freud, not a 'partisan' shot at Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky

Would you prefer I call you a racist? Would it be closer to the truth than to say you are partisan?

Frankly Proof I don't mind your insulting and cutting remarks. They say more about you than those you are responding to. Once you pursue that course, which you typically do with those who disagree with your view of reality, discussion and honest debate ends. Exactly your intent.

IMO, you are but an idealogue and are only interested in furthering your narrow ideology. Certainly your prerogative and right to do so, and I support that right. as all real Americans do. So, carry on. I even find myself in agreement with you occasionally. As I do occasionally with liberals.

Solving problems is more important than defending ideology when it is in error. No ideology Proof has all the answers. All those who occasionally disagree with yours are not naive or stupid.

Perhaps you do not like bipartisanship because it requires comprise. Yes, as you say, progressives, at least many of them are partisan and uncompromising as well. Precisely why I am neither a conservative or a progressive.

There has not been a criticism that I have leveled at Obama for whatever reason that you have not labeled partisan, with nothing more to back you up than your Mind Read Fail, or perhaps you share little voices in your head with Ema?

Your constantly condescending remarks, which coincidentally never have anything to do with the content of my posts, but rather what you imagine my motives to be, are insult worthy.

"you are but an idealogue and are only interested in furthering your narrow ideology." Horse hockey. Whenever I try to engage you in factual discussion, you run like a scalded dog. Certainly your prerogative and right to do so, and I support that right. as all real Americans do. So, carry on. I even find myself in agreement with you occasionally, as I do occasionally with other neoliberals.

"Proof has all the answers" Again, more horse hockey. I have never made that assertion, and if you ever cared to engage me on the ideas I present rather than the motivation you imagine I have, you might learn something. (Stop laughing!)

You seem like a "have to have the last word" kind of guy, so make your next response, and I'll let it go unanswered, no matter how woolly headed or mistaken it is. Take your best shot.

"When compiling sharp conservative thoughts and takes for my Morning Jolt newsletter late at night and early in the morning, I find myself coming back to Left Coast Rebel again and again." -Jim Geraghty, National Review"Hey Tim, I appreciate the kind email and the plug on your site. It’s rare that my first feedback isn’t hate mail from a disgruntled statist! You carry on too – we’ve got our work cut out for us." -Tad DeHaven, Cato Institute"Thanks so much for all YOU do for liberty and individual rights. I appreciate your strong voice for capitalism. We're changing the culture -- keep it up!" -Jonathan Hoenig, Fox News"Congrats Tim. You have arrived." -GatewayPundit"Before we sell California to China or go Lex Luther on the San Andreas Fault, let's be sure to save the Left Coast Rebel." -Barack Obama's Cousin, Milton R. Wolf, M.D.

"I like LCR because it seems like more thought goes into posts there than at many other blogs that focus more on horse-race politics." -Nate Nelson, United Liberty

Legal Ease

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
The opinions expressed are those of the respected authors alone. Any material posted here is made available for educational and informative purposes, and as such constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C., section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this blog is provided without profit for benign research and educational purposes.